Jump to content

Talk:Ahdut HaAvoda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Labour Unity)

Leaders

[edit]

Who led this party and when?--Metallurgist (talk) 03:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahdut HaAvoda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal

[edit]

The article covers different parties of the same name. The Ahdut HaAvoda that existed from 1919 to 1930 and was led by Ben-Gurion was the main component of the later Mapai. Only a leftist minority faction of Mapai (Siya Bet) repossessioned the name Ahdut HaAvoda fourteen years later – the majority stayed with Mapai. Thus, the Ahdut HaAvoda founded in 1944 is not the same party as the one founded in 1919 and they should be covered in separate articles. --RJFF (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57, Padres Hana, and Rh0809: as the main contributors to this article, whould you agree with the proposal? --RJFF (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what the benefit would be; as long as it is made clear what the timelines are in the article. For now, I think it's best to keep it all in one place. Cheers, Number 57 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with Number 57. Two articles would add potential confusion. Also I would think Mark II was conscious of Mark I. Padres Hana (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]